STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a bar disciplinary proceeding this Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction arising from its nondelegable power to regulate the practice of law. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 2001 OK 69, ¶ 7, 37 P.3d 763, 768. "In deciding whether discipline is warranted and what sanction, if any, is to be imposed for the misconduct charged, the court conducts a full-scale, nondeferential, de novo examination of all relevant facts, in which the conclusions and recommendations of the trial panel are neither binding nor persuasive." State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Clausing, 2009 OK 74, ¶ 4, 224 P.3d 1268, 1272 (citations omitted). "The Supreme Court may approve the Trial Panel's findings of fact or make its own independent findings, impose discipline, dismiss the proceedings or take other action it deems appropriate." Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), Okla. Stat. tit. 5, app. 1-A, Rule 6.15(a) (2011).
THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER BEFORE THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TRIBUNAL
An extensive trial was conducted concerning the actions of both Respondents before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT). It included testimony from two of the trial judges in the litigation that gave rise to the complaints against Respondents and numerous exhibits that included depositions and transcripts associated with that litigation. The trial became focused on the ultimate success of the underlying litigation. The General Counsel and the Respondents used the trial courts' determinations as to the merits of the litigation and those courts' view of Respondents' ethical obligations to prosecute and defend the complaints.
Judge(s): Doug Combs
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma Supreme Court
|Supreme Court Judge(s)|
|Appellant Lawyer(s)||Appellant Law Firm(s)|
|Franklyn Casey||Pro Se|
|Lawrence Johnson||Pro Se|
|Appellee Lawyer(s)||Appellee Law Firm(s)|
|Loraine Farabow||Oklahoma Bar Association|